8 Reasons Why Productive Debate And Progress Has Stalled

I’ve been thinking about the varied and interrelated reasons why we can’t have constructive conversations anymore.

What follows is what I’ve got so far. Throughout, I use examples from two hot-button issues that are sure to upset many people — Israel/Palestine and Gun Control.

Submit your own ideas and constructive debate in the comments below.

1. Inflammatory slogans

Some examples include slogans like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ — These slogans oversimplify complex issues and undermine important debates. They present fairly silly points of view that attract easy and valid counterarguments that ultimately distract and defeat many legitimate grievances.

While ‘Defund the Police’ captures a sentiment of frustration and desire for change, the real conversation is about reform and transformation to ensure safety and justice for all communities. It’s obvious to any rational person that you can’t defund (and therefore eliminate) the police — every society needs properly trained and appropriately armed police. It’s clearly preposterous and, therefore, makes it easy for the other side to dismiss the legitimate and important underlying grievances that sponsor such a slogan.

Most reasonable people would readily agree to a more nuanced position — That what’s needed to address the problems with American policing is a thoughtful engagement with details. Details like the use of military hardware (due to post-911 funding strategies) and brute force tactics (due to treating policing as an act of domination rather than community engagement and protection).

In the case of “From the River to the Sea,” Palestinians can’t, won’t, shouldn’t, and don’t need to eliminate Israel to win their freedom. This kind of framing immediately renders the speaker’s argument illegitimate before they even have a chance to talk about the very real suffering of the Palestinian people.

In this case, most reasonable people would readily agree that the Palestinians deserve their own viable state that lives alongside Israel — and that any actions that undermine that possibility work against the possibility of peace.

But these are not the conversations we often end up having because terrible slogans result in terrible (and useless) arguments.

2. Reductive Thinking

This is often the result of inflammatory slogans described above — but it goes deeper than that.

Let me share some more examples.

“Israel has a right to defend itself.” Of course, it does. But is that right, absolute? Can this defense be prosecuted without regard for innocent civilians? Is simply saying “we don’t intend to harm civilians” enough to justify massive collateral damage and the destruction of entire neighborhoods? Does it justify war crimes? Partisans use these simple and obvious fig leaves to eliminate meaningful engagement with reality.

“We’re bombing Gaza to destroy Hamas!”. Does that really make sense? Aren’t there still hostages in Gaza — likely embedded with Hamas? Do large-scale retaliatory bombings really “destroy Hamas,” or do they engender more terrorism in an endless cycle of violence? It’s fairly obvious to any objective observer that this is akin to attempting to douse flames with gasoline. And yet we’re told that there are simply no other options. This kind of reductive thinking is quite clearly a failure of imagination and critical thinking.

“The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun!”. Does anyone actually believe this? The ONLY way? What about keeping the guns out of bad people’s hands in the first place with some common sense background checks? Any reasonable person who spends a few moments thinking a little harder about the issue can easily come up with some useful ideas that are more realistic and helpful than the common simplistic talking points.

The media (and tribal leaders) often present problems in binary terms — good vs. evil, us vs. them — but reality is rarely so black and white. Not enough people challenge themselves to seek out the gray areas where truth actually resides.

3. Slippery Slope Strawmen Arguments

An example of this is the argument, “Gun safety laws are a slippery slope to the abolition of the Second Amendment!”. It’s fairly obvious to any objective person that this scare tactic diverts attention from the potential for sensible and measured legislation to enhance public safety without infringing constitutional rights.

Those who stand in the way of progress and change are always happy to argue that any incremental and reasonable improvement — when taken to an absurd extreme — is a bad idea.

Of course, anything in the extreme is a bad idea — including extreme inaction in the face of profound injustice and suffering.

4. False equivalency

A good example of false equivalency is when partisans readily declare some version of, “Hamas’s stated goal is to eliminate Israel, and we just want peace!”. This obviously isn’t a proper representation of the equivalent parties involved. Instead, it compares the extremists of one side to the moderates of another. It’s common knowledge that the extremists on both sides want to eliminate the other side. It's also true that moderates on both sides just want to raise their families and live in peace.

This is the real and proper comparison that should be the focus of attention in any genuine conversation and effort to find common ground.

5. Tribalism

We have an overwhelming need to cling to group identity at the expense of individual reasoning. This allegiance to the tribe over universal human values encourages a form of discourse that’s less about finding truth and more about defending intellectual territory and trying to win some kind of information war.

This plays out in countless debates that are ultimately about proving you’re a good member of your tribe rather than genuinely seeking to learn and grow while building genuine new consensus.

6. Censorship and Mob Justice

While real fascism and antisemitism exist (and are dangerous and disgusting), it’s fairly obvious to thoughtful people that these terms are far too often used as a cudgel to shut down legitimate debate. The intention is always to conflate legitimate and targeted critique with bigotry, precluding any chance for nuanced understanding, constructive conversation, and meaningful progress. This is not only harmful to productive debate and progress, but it dilutes the power of the terms, making real bigotry hard to spot.

Meanwhile, mobs on Twitter create the appearance of massive backlash and a very real threat to personal safety. These mobs then affect mainstream reporting and decision-making by authorities rooted less in common sense and truth-seeking and more in reactive appeasement of the swarm.

7. Media and Social media

Anonymous and algorithmically supercharged arguments make it easy for people to live in an echo chamber, revert to their baser instincts, and hurl insults at each other from behind a screen.

Most people blame social media entirely — but I blame the traditional media just as much (if not more).

Social media companies have at least acknowledged the unintended consequences of their platforms and have made some efforts to improve. On the other hand, some traditional media companies make daily editorial choices designed to manufacture outrage to drive ratings.

8. Cowardice

Due to all of the above — a climate of fear has permeated everything. Company executives and politicians are quick to capitulate in the face of potential backlash. Meanwhile, the most thoughtful are silent, afraid for their jobs and reputations.

Where to from here?

The path forward demands a recalibration of our discourse. A commitment to intellectual honesty and a rejection of the convenient over-simplification that currently prevails is imperative for the resurgence of empathy and constructive dialogue.

Or, at the very least, call bullshit when you see any of the above in your day-to-day interactions.

Together, let’s forge a path toward discourse that bridges divides and fosters progress for all.